Donnybrook Brewing At The RNC

Michael Steele, Chairman of the Republican National Committee, has found himself on the wrong side of conservative and tea party anger over recent months. He made some choices that upset even many moderates, particularly his early support for the far left Republican House candidate in New York's 23rd Congressional District. Only recently, however, have the internal battles become quite this heated.

In the New York race, a conservative Republican threw his hat into the race as an independent, and as a result, the Republican vote was split, the conservative came in second, and the Democrat won a longtime Republican district at the time of a trend otherwise going toward Republicans. That certainly didn't further endear him to those who were already questioning his decision-making abilities. It sounded too much like "business as usual, support the 'safe' candidate" to be palatable to the invigorated conservative wing of the party.

Over the past couple of days, the controversy has gotten even hotter. Steele announced that he didn't think the Republicans would re-take the House of Representatives in 2010. That may very well be true (and we have cautioned about overconfidence on this very site), but it isn't the sort of thing one expects from a strong, upbeat leader of a party that is clearly on the upswing. The job of a national chairman has two elements: First, head coach. Second, head cheerleader. The head coach side is already in question, and now the head cheerleader has led a cheer that sounds a lot like "we're number two."

Add to those woes that Steele is embroiled in the word that some of the Republican Party's biggest donors are not giving their money to the RNC. They are instead supporting state and local candidates and committees. Two reasons are given, and neither looks good for Steele. The first reason given is that Steele is good at the bureaucratic task of reacting to political disasters and attempting to clean up the mess, but totally lacking in organizational skills needed to "get out in front" of the trend and pick candidates who can win. By the time Steele puts money into a strong internal insurgency, it's often too late to put the "new" candidate into office.

The second criticism is that he doesn't seem to be aware of exactly who the big donors actually are. And if he does, he's been ignoring them. Christine Toretti of Pennsylvania and Lawrence Bathgate (former RNC finance chairman), large previous RNC contributors both, say that they've never received a personal letter or phone call from Steele. To some, that may sound petty. Still, big donors should expect at least the courtesy of personal contact, and the assurance that the chairman is fully in charge, and making good (not perfect) decisions. It's their own money, and the money of people who trust them, and they have every right to know that it's being spent in useful and dynamic ways.

Most recently, a third major criticism has dogged Steele. He is paid $223,500 annually for his job as chairman, not including almost unlimited expense reimbursement. Yet he somehow feels that he is also entitled to earn additional money making speeches when many say his time should be devoted entirely to the job of chairman. Steele has responded, somewhat weakly, that when he is making those speeches, he is also giving support to the party. Unfortunately, the job is specifically designed to raise and distribute funds, as in money, for national candidates. It is not simply to support Republican ideas. There are plenty of speakers to support the party and its principles, but they aren't paid solely to raise money for the party and to pick winning candidates. There is also a strong indication that he published his new book (Right Now: A 12 Step Agenda for Defeating Obama) and set up publicity without letting anyone at the RNC know about his plans. Rumor is that nobody knew he had a publishing contract ("more freelancing," as one RNC member says).

Harsher criticism, not entirely deserved from my point of view, is that Steele is the Republican Party's Obama. That has been floating around for some time. It unfairly posits that Steele was chosen solely as a token black to counter Obama's "post-racial" breakthrough. That contains an obvious hint of unspoken racism, but most who say it simply believe that it was a cynical ploy on the part of the Republican bigwigs. Steele is no "empty suit," and he was a good and honorable Lieutenant Governor of Maryland.

On the other side of the coin, Steele now seems to be taking heat from the Republican old guard for being "too tea party," or too conservative. That's a strange development, since even the old timers must realize that this is exactly where the 40% of Americans who have just self-identified as conservative want the party to go. In addition, late or not, Steele has just announced that he will be funneling money to conservative Republican Scott Brown in Massachusetts in the run to fill Ted Kennedy's old seat. Although Steele may not have made an early decision, he clearly picked up on the trend and sees that even a narrow loss for that seat would have huge positive implications for Republicans in the next regular Congressional election cycle.

Of course there are always those jabbing at Steele who say "I'm a lifelong Republican," and generally turn out to be nothing of the sort. They simply have found a forum to vent on. As a side note for those who haven't read my older columns, I admitted in no uncertain terms that I'm a former left wing Democrat who had an epiphany in the early 90s, became a conservative (not a neocon, thank you very much), and recognized that for all its faults, the Republican Party best represented the center-right coalition that America actually is. Steele is a loyal Republican, who didn't need an epiphany to realize what it took some of us years to learn. He does, however, need to learn that "give us a Republican, any Republican" is not a winning strategy during a conservative surge.

During Steele's tenure, he has thrown large sums into the gubernatorial campaigns in Virginia and New Jersey, two big wins for the Republicans. Although Haley Barbour and the Republican Governor's Association are to be much admired for their hard work and electioneering, Steele's contribution should not be dismissed in any way as insignificant. Whether his critics consider it cynical or not, it is genuinely important that an upstanding, successful black politician play a prominent role in Republican politics. The party is too often characterized as the white people's party, and though entirely untrue, the perception has been raised. If Steele is ultimately replaced, it had better be abundantly clear that it had nothing to do with his race, and everything to do with practical politics.

Steele also has a very strong argument going for him. He is herding Republican/conservative cats, and that's no easy task. Mistakes aside, he became chairman following and during devastating Republican election losses, and was put in charge of a party in total disarray with no clear goal and no agenda for the future. Then we were hit with a recession nearly unprecedented in our history. It would have been nothing short of a miracle if he hadn't made mistakes. His support for Brown in Massachusetts is a strong indication that he not only understands victory, but also the more subtle message that conservatives are worthy of support, even if the odds are that there will be a narrow ultimate loss to the Democrats.

My ideal chairman would pick every conservative in every race, which is why I'm not the chairman of the RNC. The Republicans lose enough elections without my help. A leader must lead, but he must also listen to his base and search for ground where the majority can join together. Perhaps he is not doctrinaire enough. But while the rest of us can look to our own districts and sense trends, Steele has two houses of Congress and the fifty states to work on, not to mention the presidency in three years. That's a bit more difficult, to say the least.

Steele should be reaching out to those big contributors. On the other hand, the phone works both ways, and instead of carping, perhaps some healthy input and a few lectures might be helpful to both Steele and the party. Wounded egos are no substitute for good alliances. Executives who won't listen to their counterparts are fools, and allies who don't push for the executives to listen to them are not much better. We are at a pivotal point in history right now, and a further divided Republican Party could undo future victory overnight. Whatever happened to the "Eleventh Commandment?" "Thou shalt not speak ill of another Republican?" to which I would add "at least nastily and publicly."

Steele on Thursday got testy (I would say understandably). He challenged his Republican critics to "fire me, or shut up." That is a very reasonable position, even if it was spoken in anger. Enough with the infighting and backstabbing. A decision needs to be made soon. Instead of withholding funds, bad-mouthing the chairman, and stirring up divisiveness, it's time for those who oppose Steele simply to challenge him for the leadership position. Lead, follow or get out of the way, but kwitcherbitchin. There are plenty of Democrats taking potshots at the Republican party in general and Steele in particular without the same thing taking place within the party. If it takes a good fight for the chairmanship to get this show on the road, then so be it.

I hope the party loyalists and conservatives in general understand that whoever is left standing after that battle gets our full support. Time is not on our side, and this street fight needs to end, soon. We have less than a year until the next Congressional and gubernatorial elections, and less than three years until the next presidential contest. A divided party, taking bitch-slaps at each other is not going to accomplish our goal.